4 ms·
It's also larger than the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that destroyed a lot of San Francisco, which was 6.9. A lot of this also has to do with how close to popu
by seaish 7y ago
It's also larger than the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that destroyed a lot of San Francisco, which was 6.9.
A lot of this also has to do with how close to populated areas the earthquake is, and if the same quake happened today, the damage would be much less due to better construction.
- cwt137 7y agoBetter construction is real. I work for a medical institution that is spending close to $1bln to build a new hospital from scratch because they found it cheaper than to do yet another earthquake retrofit.
- BurningFrog 7y agoNote that Loma Prieta is just north of Santa Cruz, over 60 miles from San Francisco. Not sure how to compensate for distance, but my gut feel says that's about equivalent to a 5.9 in SF itself?
- pvg 7y agodestroyed a lot of San Francisco That's overstating things by quite a bit. There was severe damage and fatalities but 'destroyed a lot of San Francisco' was 1906, an estimated 7.9 followed by fires.
- WalterBright 7y agoThe fires did by far the majority of the damage.
- dfeojm-zlib 7y agoUm, no. LP caused extensive damage in small sections of San Francisco, but the two eqs are nearly the same intensity. PS: I lost my proverbial "I survived the Loma Prieta in San Jose" t-shirt. Lost half a swimming pool, bookshelves, dishes and so on... our furniture was anchored to the wall studs and computer monitors and other electronics were industrial Velcroed to surfaces.
- masonic 7y agodestroyed a lot of San Francisco It destroyed hardly any of San Francisco (almost nothing outside the Marina), given that the epicenter was three counties away.